On the morning of March 31, 2011, plaintiff Marciano Pena, 89, was being transported by a commercial van operated by Carlos Espinoza of Medi-Coach, a non-emergency medical transport company, in Culver City. At approximately 8:45 p.m., Pena was on a motorized scooter, being lowered on the vehicle’s ramp and hydraulic lift, located in the rear of the van, when he fell and hit his head. Pena died five days later on April 4, 2011, due to a traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. The decedent’s sons, Henry and Angel Pena, acting individually and on behalf of their father’s estate, sued Espinoza; the owner of the transport vehicle, Marita Kaw, who was doing business as Medi-Coach Non-Emergency Medical Transport; and the company that outfitted the van’s ramp and hydraulic lift, Braun Corp. The decedent’s sons alleged that the actions of Espinoza and Kaw constituted negligence and elder abuse, and that Braun Corp. negligently designed the lift. They also alleged that the defendants’ negligence caused their father’s wrongful death. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Espinoza failed to assist the decedent, failed to ensure that the brakes on the decedent’s motorized scooter were on, and failed to ensure that the scooter was powered off. Counsel further contended that Braun Corp. was negligent in the design of the hydraulic lift with respect to the outboard roll stop not properly engaging when the wheels of the motorized scooter came into contact with it as the scooter was moving backward off the platform. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that as a result of the defendants’ negligence, the decedent fell and hit his head, resulting in his wrongful death. The defendants denied that they were negligent or that they caused the decedent’s death. Braun claimed the rear-mounted lift had an eight-inch high outboard roll stop (berm), which was properly designed to prevent falls. The decedent’s sons ultimately dismissed their products liability claim against Braun for a waiver of costs. Thus, the matter continued against Espinoza and Kaw only. Kaw claimed Espinoza had been transporting the decedent with the same scooter to dialysis treatment in the subject van, or a similar vehicle, three times a week for over 18 months without incident. Espinoza claimed that he followed standard protocol for the transportation and disembarkment of the decedent. He also claimed he had verbally instructed the decedent to power down his scooter before he operated the lift to begin lowering the decedent. Espinoza alleged that he was not supposed to operate the scooter for the decedent, per standard industry protocol, and that Espinoza reasonably believed the decedent complied with his instructions to power off the scooter, as he had on previous trips. Counsel for Espinoza and Kaw contended that there was no brake on the scooter, so there was no brake to set, and that the scooter only had a hand brake and speed controls operated by the scooter user. Counsel also contended that the decedent fell backward because he left the power to the scooter on and had, intentionally or inadvertently, touched the scooter control to drive in reverse. Counsel further contended that the decedent had pre-set the scooter for the highest speed, so that the scooter moved backward rapidly and over the eight-inch high outboard roll stop., Marciano Pena suffered a traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage from hitting his head, and died five days after the accident. He was 89. The decedent is survived by his two adult sons, Henry and Angel Pena, ages 46 and 48, respectively. Thus, the decedent’s sons sought recovery of $91,496.73 in special damages for the medical, funeral and burial costs. They also sought recovery of an unspecified amount in non-economic wrongful death damages. Counsel for Espinoza and Kaw contended that the decedent fell backward while still seated in his scooter and that his head hit the headrest of the scooter, not the pavement. Counsel also contended that the decedent appeared to be fine immediately following the fall, but was taken to the hospital as a precaution. In addition, counsel contended that the decedent had a medical history of end-stage renal failure and required regular dialysis treatment. Thus, counsel for Espinoza and Kaw asserted that the decedent may not have received timely treatment and necessary dialysis following his hospital admission, which may have caused or contributed to his demise.